In this blog post, we’ll compare these two figures, both known as the “Fathers of History,” and explore the origins and significance of historical writing.
If we broadly define history as humanity’s memory of the past or as a narrative, then history in that sense clearly existed even before the emergence of Herodotus, who is often called the “Father of History.” For example, the epic poems written by the ancient Greek poet Homer are based on past events—such as the Trojan War—and can be viewed as a form of historical narrative in their own right. However, today such works are not included in the category of “history in the strict sense.” This is because Homer was a figure who sang, “captivated” by inspiration received from the gods, based on the mythical representations of collective memory that had been passed down in a pre-literate society. Homer, a poet who sang of past events, was in fact merely a conduit for the inspiration bestowed by the Muses and Apollo—in other words, nothing more than a “mediator of memory.”
The key prerequisite for the emergence of “history in the strict sense” is precisely liberation from that “trance-like state,” that is, a state dependent on collective memory. The decisive catalyst that made this liberation possible was contact between culturally heterogeneous groups. It was only through encounters with foreign cultures that humans could finally relativize the collective memory and worldview of their own group, thereby allowing the emergence of individuals who sought to compare and revise existing memories. It was on the foundation of this transformation that Herodotus’s ‘History’ (‘Historia’) came into being.
For reference, the Greek word ‘historia’, meaning “history,” originally signified “eyewitness testimony,” but by Herodotus’s time, its meaning had expanded to include “inquiry.” His ‘Historia’ is a work that deals with the “Persian Wars”—the most significant events directly experienced by Herodotus’s contemporaries—and their causes. In this regard, Herodotus can be seen as engaging in a sort of rivalry with Homer, who focused on the ancient war known as the Trojan War. However, the two described war in fundamentally different ways. While Homer mythologized the collective memory passed down through oral tradition to depict distant events of the past, Herodotus personally inspected the sites or collected records and testimonies through various channels, and then systematically described events from a relatively recent period based on this evidence.
Herodotus’ ‘History’ consists of nine books in total; Books 1 through 4 are devoted to exploring the background and causes of the Persian Wars, while Books 5 through 9 focus on describing the actual course of the war and its outcomes. In this way, he maintained an investigative approach aimed not merely at listing events but at exploring their causes and revealing the resulting causal relationships.
In terms of his narrative style, Herodotus did not discriminate among sources when collecting various records and testimonies. In some cases, he visited the sites in person to verify the facts, but he was unable to verify most of the information directly. Nevertheless, rather than critically filtering this information, he chose to present and list it as diversely as possible. This approach led later historians to perceive the narrative of ‘The Histories’ as often disjointed. In particular, Books 1 through 4 of ‘The Histories’ place significant emphasis on the customs, traditions, geography, and legends of regions outside Greece, leading some to criticize the work for a lack of thematic coherence.
This characteristic stemmed in part from the limitations of the era, in which Herodotus’s capacity for analytical and abstract thought was still underdeveloped, and in part from the narrative style of his time—namely, the practice of reciting works to an audience. At that time, it was more common to recite texts in public than to write books, and accordingly, he had to provide a variety of stories and material to capture the audience’s attention. In other words, Herodotus was not merely a historian but also served as a storyteller.
Meanwhile, Thucydides, the historian who succeeded Herodotus, came to be regarded by later generations as the “paragon of historians.” Thucydides, too, wrote about a major event of his own time: the Peloponnesian War. However, his approach to historical events differed markedly from Herodotus’s. Whereas Herodotus sometimes tended to let his narrative veer off course with descriptions of various geographical details or the customs of different peoples, Thucydides achieved narrative consistency and a focused argument by concentrating on political and military history.
His ‘History of the Peloponnesian War’ consists of eight books in total; after Book I provides an account of the background and causes of the war, the remaining seven books focus exclusively on the course of the war itself. This structure also confirms that he worked with written texts in mind rather than the oral storytelling traditions of his time. Thucydides sought to write works focused solely on the reader’s understanding and critical thinking, without needing to consider the audience’s reaction.
In terms of narrative methodology, Thucydides also established clear criteria. He considered only records he had obtained personally and eyewitness accounts to be reliable information, while thoroughly excluding stories or rumors heard secondhand. Furthermore, while reconciling conflicting details among the information he gathered, he selected and presented to the reader only the information he deemed necessary. This was because he believed that, as a subject of historical understanding rather than a mere chronicler, he was capable of bridging the gap between past events and the available information on his own.
He guided his narrative based on his own historical perspective and experience, and in the process, the author himself completely withdraws from the text after the first-person narration in the preface. In other words, his narrative adopts a form in which the “narrator” is invisible, and the “text itself” becomes the narrator. This narrative technique reinforces the impression of an objective and restrained account. Furthermore, by meticulously analyzing and describing the psychological motivations of the individuals and groups involved in the events, he brought historical events vividly to life. Thanks to these detailed descriptions, readers come to accept the text’s narrator as an objective and authoritative observer, and this acceptance of authority gradually becomes second nature as they read.
Subsequent Western historical traditions came to emulate Thucydides’ narrative methodology rather than Herodotus’s approach. In other words, emphasis was placed on principles such as a more logical and focused subject matter, a critical and objective attitude, and thorough verification of sources. This trend is clearly evident in the assessments of later historians; a prime example is the following statement by J.-P. Vernant: “Despite the existence of Herodotus, we are tempted to call Thucydides the first true historian of Greece.” This statement is not merely a tribute to Thucydides as an individual; it also serves as important evidence demonstrating how the paradigm of historical narration has been formed and evolved.
